blinded is better
#vendor-verification 2026-04-28
Tuesday44 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- ten_of_ten — ok so what actually counts as evidence for a verification 20:26
- vienna_vial — what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 21:08
- tam_logs — a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both 23:09
follow up we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
thin evidence
[edited]a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
ok so what actually counts as evidence for a verification
🧪12
does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
thats not evidence
20:47chlorhex pinned a message
log it either way
⚠️4📉1🤝1
update from 22 months ago: KP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
both numbers go in
thats evidence
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
✅17
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, someone check my working
revoked stays in the log
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
nothing gets deleted
⚠️6
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
never for sale
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
🔥1
does GGPeps being verified mean my vial is fine
lot number or nothing
💀1
Inter-lab diff for lot B-0329: 96.8% vs 99.2%. Within expected range.
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
ok so how does a supplier get verification revoked
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
🔥6💀12🧊9
thats not evidence
not a recommendation
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
[edited]verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted